5 ms·

> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing

by umvi 5y ago

> Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. One thing to note though is that the less mature a field is, the more gaps there will be an expert's knowledge/models. Doctors in the 1940s were regarded as medical experts, and yet many were actively promoting cigarettes. History is littered with "experts" whose expertise was outrageously wrong or misguided in hindsight. So I say people should judge experts by the maturity of their field and in the context they are providing expertise on. A civil engineer is giving expertise on whether a building will collapse or not? You'll likely get extremely reliable expertise you can count on. A doctor is promoting a glass of wine a day for health reasons? Take it with a grain of salt.

popcube 5y ago
but that the best advice we can get now
nradov 5y ago
Be careful: that salt will give you high blood pressure! Or not, depending on which medical "expert" turns out to be correct.
- zuminator 5y ago
  I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual expert who would make the general claim that salt consumption will cause high blood pressure, as opposed to a claim that some people are salt-sensitive, or that high salt diets are positively correlated with high blood pressure, or something else. Part of the problem is that non-experts tend to summarize expert information in ways that alter or omit crucial points, and then people are disappointed when the crib notes version tends to be inaccurate.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Yes I was being somewhat flippant. Besides genetic susceptibility, the current research indicates that the issue with salt is more due to osmolality than quantity. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ And yet the medical experts still get it wrong by oversimplifying the issue and making dietary recommendations based on quantity. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/changes-you-can-make-to-manage-high-blood-pressure/shaking-the-salt-habit-to-lower-high-blood-pressure https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/c...
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  I had a discussion about this with a doctor. I asked them for their opinions on sodium to potassium ratios by age group and sodium loss through sweat. I got blank stares and the subject changed. I've had far more fascinating and informative discussions with nutritionists and fitness coaches, not to suggest they are a definitive source of knowledge. I find it ultimately best to research things on my own and take all scientific papers with a skeptical grain of salt.
  - rchowe 5y ago
    A physician probably learns the physiology of sweat glands, mechanisms for how the human body regulates sodium and potassium, and diseases caused by regulatory mechanisms not working. Unless they had an interest or read a study, I’m not sure I would expect a physician to know that, and in my experience a lot of physicians are reluctant to speculate. Nutritionists and fitness coaches are much more willing to speculate in my experience, with the caveat that they may not have the same education as a scientist as a physician does.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    To be fair, an expert not answering a question that they don't know the answer to is a good outcome. The real expert for your question would be a researcher in the specific field, or perhaps the rare doctor who has taken an interest in following such research.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    I had been cutting caffeine out of my life for awhile. Ended on ER where they stuck an actual bag of caffeine to my IV. Felt like I was in a comic. Also that much caffeine really sucks.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  Are you implying that salt does not raise blood pressure? Because I am pretty sure you are wrong. But be free to share RCT's showing it is indeed a false association.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Your surety is misplaced and unfortunately you're not even asking the right question. The relationship between salt and blood pressure is a complex, multi-factorial issue which can't be adequately summarized in a comment here. The best explanation I've heard is this interview with Rick Johnson, MD who is one of the most prominent researchers in that field. It's long but worth a listen. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/
    - rafaelero 5y ago
      I don't really care how complex it is. Split people between two groups, offer food with half the salt to one group and see what happens. No need to overcomplicate.
      - nradov 5y ago
theplumber 5y ago
One issue is the undisclosed interests. Something tells me that doctors who were promoting cigarettes were paid to do so. Just like we've seen experts saying that oil /CO2 has nothing to do with climate change or health issues. This kind of collusion should bring criminal charges both to the experts and to the ultimate party that funded the misleading research. The other issue is the lack of education and basic critical thinking among a high proportion of population so you find yourself in a world full of conspiracy theories and fake information. For some reasons I thought this issue can be found only in 3rd world countries but covid openned my eyes...
deanCommie 5y ago
So, here's the challenge. A doctor is promoting vaccinating your child from COVID?. Should that also be taken with a grain of salt? What about measles? How do you draw the line? How do you help others - suspicious of authority, and being actively manipulated in a culture war to distrust anything a "progressive" tells them - to draw the line? I think it's impossible. The only way is to say that "Doctors are experts. They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. Experts doesn't mean getting things 100% right. But it definitely means getting things more right than you, most of the time. So trust them, even if as new information develops, the advice will shift". By the way both sides in the culture war believe this. FOX News finds their own experts. They find the 0.1% scientists that don't believe in climate change and give them 60% of the airtime. But they still appeal to experts.
- rajin444 5y ago
  > But it definitely means getting things more right than you, most of the time. So trust them, even if as new information develops, the advice will shift You're advocating giving up all agency and placing 100% trust in a person. There are endless examples in human history as to why this is dangerous. There are very few as to why this is good. "Just trust me" is generally regarded as something said by a person you should not trust, and for good reason. > How do you draw the line? You do your best to evaluate the information on your own and find sources you trust. The latter is nearly impossible when an issue becomes political.
  - sutuplesu 5y ago
    > find sources you trust And those sources will consist of...who? Perhaps, people who have spent time and effort learning about the topic, a.k.a. "the experts"?
    - rajin444 5y ago
      Spending a lot of time on one thing does not inherently make you trustworthy. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
clairity 5y ago
'field maturity' could perhaps say something about the likeliness of trustworthy information/advice overall, but says nothing about the trustworthiness of the expert themselves. in fact, the nominative 'expert' is a political injection, practically begging for appeal to authority to shut down critical thinking. expertise has little correlation to trustworthiness, given that it typically gets overwhelmed by the politically-interwined 'esteem'. there is no shortcut to doing the hard work of triangulating the best information out of many biased opinions, including so-called 'experts'[0]. this is true of news, reviews, and commentary of all sorts. [0]: similarly noted in a different context here, along with it's grandparent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29678221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29678221

by umvi 5y ago

popcube 5y ago

but that the best advice we can get now

nradov 5y ago

Be careful: that salt will give you high blood pressure! Or not, depending on which medical "expert" turns out to be correct.

zuminator 5y ago
I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual expert who would make the general claim that salt consumption will cause high blood pressure, as opposed to a claim that some people are salt-sensitive, or that high salt diets are positively correlated with high blood pressure, or something else. Part of the problem is that non-experts tend to summarize expert information in ways that alter or omit crucial points, and then people are disappointed when the crib notes version tends to be inaccurate.
- nradov 5y ago
  Yes I was being somewhat flippant. Besides genetic susceptibility, the current research indicates that the issue with salt is more due to osmolality than quantity. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ And yet the medical experts still get it wrong by oversimplifying the issue and making dietary recommendations based on quantity. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/changes-you-can-make-to-manage-high-blood-pressure/shaking-the-salt-habit-to-lower-high-blood-pressure https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/c...
LinuxBender 5y ago
I had a discussion about this with a doctor. I asked them for their opinions on sodium to potassium ratios by age group and sodium loss through sweat. I got blank stares and the subject changed. I've had far more fascinating and informative discussions with nutritionists and fitness coaches, not to suggest they are a definitive source of knowledge. I find it ultimately best to research things on my own and take all scientific papers with a skeptical grain of salt.
- rchowe 5y ago
  A physician probably learns the physiology of sweat glands, mechanisms for how the human body regulates sodium and potassium, and diseases caused by regulatory mechanisms not working. Unless they had an interest or read a study, I’m not sure I would expect a physician to know that, and in my experience a lot of physicians are reluctant to speculate. Nutritionists and fitness coaches are much more willing to speculate in my experience, with the caveat that they may not have the same education as a scientist as a physician does.
- mindslight 5y ago
  To be fair, an expert not answering a question that they don't know the answer to is a good outcome. The real expert for your question would be a researcher in the specific field, or perhaps the rare doctor who has taken an interest in following such research.
- treeman79 5y ago
  I had been cutting caffeine out of my life for awhile. Ended on ER where they stuck an actual bag of caffeine to my IV. Felt like I was in a comic. Also that much caffeine really sucks.
rafaelero 5y ago
Are you implying that salt does not raise blood pressure? Because I am pretty sure you are wrong. But be free to share RCT's showing it is indeed a false association.
- nradov 5y ago
  Your surety is misplaced and unfortunately you're not even asking the right question. The relationship between salt and blood pressure is a complex, multi-factorial issue which can't be adequately summarized in a comment here. The best explanation I've heard is this interview with Rick Johnson, MD who is one of the most prominent researchers in that field. It's long but worth a listen. https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/
  - rafaelero 5y ago
    I don't really care how complex it is. Split people between two groups, offer food with half the salt to one group and see what happens. No need to overcomplicate.
    - nradov 5y ago

theplumber 5y ago

One issue is the undisclosed interests. Something tells me that doctors who were promoting cigarettes were paid to do so. Just like we've seen experts saying that oil /CO2 has nothing to do with climate change or health issues. This kind of collusion should bring criminal charges both to the experts and to the ultimate party that funded the misleading research. The other issue is the lack of education and basic critical thinking among a high proportion of population so you find yourself in a world full of conspiracy theories and fake information. For some reasons I thought this issue can be found only in 3rd world countries but covid openned my eyes...

deanCommie 5y ago

So, here's the challenge. A doctor is promoting vaccinating your child from COVID?. Should that also be taken with a grain of salt? What about measles? How do you draw the line? How do you help others - suspicious of authority, and being actively manipulated in a culture war to distrust anything a "progressive" tells them - to draw the line? I think it's impossible. The only way is to say that "Doctors are experts. They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. Experts doesn't mean getting things 100% right. But it definitely means getting things more right than you, most of the time. So trust them, even if as new information develops, the advice will shift". By the way both sides in the culture war believe this. FOX News finds their own experts. They find the 0.1% scientists that don't believe in climate change and give them 60% of the airtime. But they still appeal to experts.

rajin444 5y ago
> But it definitely means getting things more right than you, most of the time. So trust them, even if as new information develops, the advice will shift You're advocating giving up all agency and placing 100% trust in a person. There are endless examples in human history as to why this is dangerous. There are very few as to why this is good. "Just trust me" is generally regarded as something said by a person you should not trust, and for good reason. > How do you draw the line? You do your best to evaluate the information on your own and find sources you trust. The latter is nearly impossible when an issue becomes political.
- sutuplesu 5y ago
  > find sources you trust And those sources will consist of...who? Perhaps, people who have spent time and effort learning about the topic, a.k.a. "the experts"?
  - rajin444 5y ago
    Spending a lot of time on one thing does not inherently make you trustworthy. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

clairity 5y ago

'field maturity' could perhaps say something about the likeliness of trustworthy information/advice overall, but says nothing about the trustworthiness of the expert themselves. in fact, the nominative 'expert' is a political injection, practically begging for appeal to authority to shut down critical thinking. expertise has little correlation to trustworthiness, given that it typically gets overwhelmed by the politically-interwined 'esteem'. there is no shortcut to doing the hard work of triangulating the best information out of many biased opinions, including so-called 'experts'[0]. this is true of news, reviews, and commentary of all sorts. [0]: similarly noted in a different context here, along with it's grandparent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29678221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29678221